The article is useful, detailing different approaches to... deal with the ugliness; but it still lost me because of the ridiculous implication that Go's error h

The article is useful, detailing different approaches to... deal with the ugliness; but it still lost me because of the ridiculous implication that Go's error handling is in any way right or even better than the try catch flow. It isn't, it so much isn't that even its designers are tacitly considering they're wrong with check and handle (Go's own try catch, which the OP himself mentioned). Go is not perfect, no language is, and one of its biggest flaws is its odious error handling. And that is good, because nothing can be perfect. Apropos of nothing, it's pretty amusing that the go faq entry criticizing exceptions has a typo.